Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Paleo-Orthodoxy: The Lost Years of Jesus

We
have looked at the popular myths about the lost years and true
identity of Jesus in several articles here (see our Library section), and have come away from the study discovering that
none of the fringe claims is true. Does this mean we have no answers?

Not at all.

We can put the puzzle pieces together from Jewish history, the
traditions of Judaism, and the Gospel accounts.

We
have to approach the quest for truth like an historian. It is a
common misconception that we have to apply the scientific method.
This is fallacious, since we are dealing with an issue of history,
not science. So we should apply the Historical Method. The Scientific
Method requires any proposition be proven in a controlled
environment, by experimentation, and be repeatable and observable.
One can hardly go back in time and prove anything historical using
such criteria. The Historical Method, by contrast, relies on the
following criteria:

Written
Records

Oral
Tradition

Physical
Evidence

While
we admit the historical evidence for the veracity of the Gospel's and
the truths they contain is not absolute, it is sufficient to prove
its reliability. This does not place our quest at any deficit, since
you cannot prove anything historical with 100% certainty. As Blaise
Pascal wrote:

“There
is enough evidence to convince anyone who is not set against it, but
not enough to bring anyone into the kingdom who will not come.”

We
must also reject the approach that truth is relative. The statement,
“That is your truth, I have mine” is a logical fallacy.
Merely believing something does not make it true. Belief and Truth
are not synonymous. For example, if I believe that if I jump from the
tallest building in the city, I will not fall, does this make it
true? Of course not! Gravity will act on me and I'll fall like a
stone.

We
also have to reject the idea that it does not matter what we believe,
as long as we have faith. Faith does not make belief true. With this
said, we can proceed with our quest.

Any
reputable historian (and this disqualifies Nephilim hunters, and the like) will start his study by going to the primary
source documents. In this case, the primary source documents are the
four Gospel accounts of the New Testament. The first question before
us is, are the primary source documents reliable?

The
following are the premises we will work from:

The
New Testament is historically accurate and trustworthy.

On
the basis of this reliable and accurate historical document, we can
know for a certainty who Jesus was.

On
these bases, we can conclude that Jesus was who He said He was, and
did what the Gospels say He did.

Let us
first look at the objections to our premises.

“You
can't say the Gospels are reliable and accurate! They were written at
least 200 years after the life of Jesus. They're obviously distorted
over time.”

The
fact of the matter is, the New Testament was written within 60 years
of the life of Christ, and some within 30 years. There have been
manuscripts found that date within the first century A.D. For example, the Ryland's Papyri. 1
As this is a copy of the original, the original itself must have been
written prior to 125 A.D. We must also take into account that Church
Fathers Clement and Ignatius were quoting from the New Testament
canon approximately 100A.D. Logically this tells us that the books
had to have been in circulation in the church for some time prior.

It is
also very telling that the New Testament authors make no mention of
the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. Certainly, if
it had already happened they would have noted this, as Jesus
prophesied of the coming destruction of the Temple. Then we have
Paul, who died sometime in the mid-60s A.D. When we look in the book
of Acts, written by Luke, Paul is still alive at the time of its
writing. We know that Luke write his gospel account before
he wrote Acts. Thus, the Gospel According to Luke had to have been
written prior to 60 A.D. when Paul died.

From
these historical evidences we can conclude that there would have been
little time for mythology or egregious error to appear in the gospel
accounts, and that they were written much earlier than even 100 A.D.

If we
examine the gospels using the Bibliographical Criteria, we will find
they are reliable as well.

Bibliographical
Criteria evaluates the reliability of a manuscript based on the time
span between the original and the existing documents, the number of
manuscripts, and the quality of the manuscripts. It examines how much
variation exists between the written records of each text. This
allows historians to evaluate how well a document has been preserved
from error or addition.

The
time span between the original classical Greek documents and the
earliest existing copies of the same is approximately 1,000 years.
For example, the time span for the works of Aristotle is 1,400 years.
The time span for the works of Tacitus is 1,000 years. The time span
for the works of Caesar is 950 years. This is quite a significant
span of time, yet no one suggests the classical literature is corrupt
or untrustworthy. Thus, if there were significantly less time
between the original New Testament manuscripts and the earliest
existing copies available to us today, then the New Testament would
have an air tight claim to reliability.

The
time span between the original and earliest extant manuscripts of the
New Testament is approximately 90 years. The conclusion we can reach
as a result is that there was simply not enough time for the gospel
accounts to be corrupted.

“But
what about differences in the gospel accounts?”

The
more manuscripts we possess for comparison, the likelier we are to
find the original manuscript content. Let us look again at the number
of New Testament manuscripts and fragments extant.

We have:

5,700
classical Greek manuscripts

10,000
classical Latin manuscripts

9,300
miscellaneous versions

This
means we have roughly 25,000 manuscripts and manuscript fragments of
the New Testament books. In addition, we have thousands upon
thousands of quotations from these books by the earliest Church
Fathers.

Now
let us compare this to classical Greek and Roman literature. The
number of manuscripts for both is actually very small. Homer's The
Iliad has the greatest number of existing manuscripts, at 643
copies. So that is 25,000 for the New Testament and 643 for Homer.
Clearly the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is
overwhelmingly superior to that of classical Greek and Roman
literature. 2

When
we examine closely the differences in the New Testament manuscripts
we find that only 1/60th of the manuscripts differ, and
these differences are so minor that they do not impact the history of
the books, nor their theology in any way. This does not leave room
for the argument that the differences in any way impact the
reliability of the Gospel accounts.

Does
the internal and external evidence point to the reliability of the
New Testament writings?

There
is an Aristotelian principle known as the “benefit of the doubt”.
It basically goes as follows:

“The
benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document and not to the
critic.”3

With
this dictum in mind we will proceed to examine the internal and
external evidence of the New Testament manuscripts.

The
Law of Non-Contradiction states, “If one statement absolutely
contradicts another statement, without qualification, at least one of
the statements cannot be true.”

In
order for one statement to absolutely contradict another, there must
be no sense in which both statements can be true. However, if there
is a logical explanation, it is not a real contradiction- only a
seeming one. For example, we have apparent contradictions between
John's account of the timing of the crucifixion and Mark's timing of
the crucifixion.

“When
Pilate heard these words he brought Jesus outside....Now it was the
day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon.”-
John 19:13,14

“It
was nine in the morning when they crucified him.”- Mark
15:25

Mark
and John seemingly do not agree. According to Mark, Jesus was
crucified at nine o'clock in the morning and died shortly after his
so-called "cry of dereliction" at three o'clock in
the afternoon. However, John's Gospel still has Jesus before Pilate
at noon, with no other time frame given for the actual crucifixion.
All four accounts agree that Jesus was dead by evening of that day.
Do we have a real contradiction? The answer is no. John was simply
using Roman time in his account, while Mark used Jewish. Pilate
handed Jesus over to be crucified at around 6:00 a.m. (the sixth hour
of Roman time), and Jesus was crucified at 9:00 a.m. (the third hour
of Jewish time.). All of the claims of discrepancies in the Gospel
accounts fall into this same category.

Keep
in mind that the authors of the New Testament had to be very careful
about presenting only the facts. There were many enemies of the
Christian community who served as vociferous critics. These critics
would have leaped upon any discrepancy in order to discredit them.
The enemies of the fledgling church would certainly have exposed any
fallacies. Also it is important to take note of the price paid by the
Apostles of Jesus for their historical and spiritual testimony. They
were all persecuted, and most murdered as a result. People will not
die for what they know to be a lie. The authors of the Gospel's
willingly gave their lives in witness to the truth of their
historical accounts of Jesus. This should leave little doubt as to
their truthfulness.

What
about external evidences? Externally we have the corroboration of
the early Church Fathers. For example, Papias, a disciple of the
Apostle John, writes:

“The
Elder, the Apostle John, used to say this also: Mark, having been the
interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he, Peter,
mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in
order.”4

Irenaeus,
a disciple of Polycarp (himself a disciple of John), writes:

“So
firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very
heretics themselves bear witness to them, and starting from these
documents, each one of them endeavors to establish his own particular
doctrine.”5

Additionally,
if we combine the histories given us by Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian,
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, and the Talmud, we find that
history says:

Jewish
leaders charged Jesus with sorcery (referencing his healing power) and claimed He was born of
adultery (referencing his virgin birth). (Talmud)

This
demonstrates that the history contained in the Gospel accounts is
corroborated by non-Christian, and in some cases hostile, secular
historical sources.

Having
established the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts, we
will now turn our attention to the lost years of Jesus and His true
identity. Where was He, what did He do, and in what way is the
Messianic Secret connected to His true identity?

We
have established that Jesus was never in India, Tibet, or any of the
other strange claims made for his lost years by various occultists
and fringe authors. This means that Jesus grew up where the Gospel
accounts say He did- Nazareth. What was His life like in first century Nazareth? What can we say about Jesus' lost years from an
examination of orthodox Jewish life at that time?

Jesus
spent most of His life around those who farmed and grew vineyards-
perhaps even helping in them Himself growing up. The
village area of Nazareth was populated mostly by Jews, but also with
some diversity of Syrians, Greeks, and Romans. The major city was
Jerusalem, which was more cosmopolitan and contained far greater
ethnic diversity.
Being around Greeks and Romans would have had some impact on His
education. For example, the
common language in the Roman Empire was Greek. Jesus would have been
taught Hebrew and Aramaic, and very likely Greek- as it would have
been essential to commerce. Jesus’ every day language was Aramaic.

The
center of a village was the marketplace and shops. And for a Jewish
village, the synagogue was a central meeting place, and the seat of
the local Jewish government. Jesus would certainly have
grown up attending synagogue, participating in the traditional holy
days of Judaism, and living an orthodox Jewish life.

Houses
were all purpose 1 to 2 room squares, with dirt floors, flat roofs,
low and narrow doorways, and front wooden doors. Jesus would have
slept on the flat roof during hot nights, perhaps gazing up at the
stars and praying to His Heavenly Father as He lay on a mat or some
other cloth His family purchased at the market. The houses were
arranged around a central shared courtyard where neighbors performed
daily chores (cooking, laundry, etc.) in each others company. Jesus'
mother Mary would have carried in water from a public well and store
it in a courtyard cistern. Men generally did not do this type of
work, as it was domestic. At night, Jesus would have lit an
earthenware oil lamp if He wanted to read from a scroll or just talk
with family members.

Mary
and Jesus' sisters' daily job included preparing food for the family-for example, they would grind grain, bake bread, milk the
animals, and make cheese. Jesus would have eaten two meals: Breakfast
– light or small amounts of food taken to work; and Dinner – A
large meal with cheese, wine, vegetables and fruits, and eggs. As for
meat, fish was most common, followed by chicken or fowl. Red meat
(beef and lamb) was served only on special occasions, and pork and
crustaceans were absolutely forbidden by the Law- and thus, Jesus
would never have eaten them. Most foods were boiled or stewed in a
big pot and seasoned with salt, onions, garlic, cumin, coriander,
mint, dill, and mustard. Food was sweetened with wild honey or syrups
from dates or grapes. Food was generally served in a common bowl and
Jesus and His family would have eaten their meals by dipping in with
their fingers.

Jesus'
clothing would have been simple. His undergarment was called a
“tunic”. His outer garment was called a “mantle” – it was
loose fitting with fringes, bound by blue thread. He wore a belt –
a four-inch wide leather belt or cloth “girdle”. If one was
wearing only an undergarment, then he was said to be “naked” or
“stripped”. If one was wearing only an undergarment (tunic) and
belt, they were said to be wearing a “loincloth”. The phrase “to
gird your loins”
meant that the tunic was pulled up between the legs and tucked into
the belt. He also wore sandals on His feet, and a white cloth over
His head, hanging to His shoulders. This cloth protected Him from the
sun.

Joseph
(Jesus’ father) was a “tekton”
(Greek). The word tekton
has often been translated as
carpenter,
but probably more accurately denotes a stone
worker.
It is highly likely that Jesus and Joseph worked in nearby Sepphoris.
Sepphoris had been destroyed in a political feud in about 4 BCE - the
approximate date of the birth of Jesus - and it was rebuilt during
the time that Jesus was growing up nearby in Nazareth. Known as the
"ornament
of the Galilee",
Sepphoris was wealthy, sophisticated and predominately Jewish. An
elaborate system of water works kept residents supplied with fresh
water; satellite villages such as Nazareth may have kept it supplied
with food.Jesus
was likely employed in rebuilding the city.

Carol Meyers6
states that such employment would have required Jesus to speak Greek,
in addition to Hebrew and Aramaic. "Jesus
was tri-lingual,"
she says. "You
couldn't deal and wheel, either in the workplace or in the market
without knowing a good deal of Greek. And I can hardly imagine
anybody worth their salt who wouldn't know some Greek."

This would make His family a part of the middle class. Mary was a
teenager who was “promised” by her parents to be married to
Joseph. Following their marriage, and Jesus’ birth, Mary and Joseph
had other children as well. Jesus' brother James7
wrote the New Testament epistle that bears his name. Jude is also a
brother of Jesus and author of the epistle bearing his name. Jesus
had two other brothers, whose names are Joseph and Simon.8
Jesus also had sisters, whose names also did not come down to us.

Jesus'
religious upbringing would have been quite orthodox. The Jewish
people believe in one God (monotheism) who is invisible and can not
be portrayed. In contrast, the surrounding cultures believed in many
gods (polytheism) who could be represented by images or idols. Jesus
would have looked upon these idols with due disgust.

Jesus'
life was centered on the Sabbath Day – the day began on Friday at
sundown and ended at Saturday sundown. He would start the Sabbath
with prayer, then Mary would have lit the Sabbath candles, and then
they would all share joyful Friday supper. Sabbath was considered to
be a day of rest and worship, where everything one did was in honor
of God.

Jesus'
education emphasized Mosaic law, ethics, and history for the purpose
of right, moral living. In contrast, the Greek education system
called “gymnasium” emphasized science, arts, linguistics and
bodily training. Jesus started His formal education at the age of 5,
learning to read and write. At age 10, boys would start to learn the
Mosaic law. Formal education was complete by age 18. Jesus' sisters
would learn at home from Mary and other women, while He was educated
by a Rabbi (teacher) from the local synagogue. If Jesus sought
advanced education as a “scribe” or doctor of the law, He could
have studied a broader range of topics, though we have no record of
such training. Jesus certainly studied at the synagogue – in one
instance when Jesus was 12 years old as recorded in Jesus’
biography by Luke, the author says, “They
(Jesus’ parents) found him (Jesus) in the temple courts, sitting
among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.
Everyone who heard him wasamazed
at his understanding and his answers.”
(Luke
2:46-47)

This
then, is the mystery of the lost years of Jesus solved. He lived a
normal Jewish life, doing normal Jewish things, until His public
ministry at the age of 30.

1A
collection of thousands of papyrus fragments and documents from
North Africa and Greece housed at the John Rylands University
Library, in Manchester, UK. It includes Papyrus P52, St. John's
fragment, the earliest extant record of a canonical gospel, dated
125 A.D.

2Venetus
A, copied in the 10th century, is the oldest fully extant
manuscript of the Iliad.